Xref: utzoo comp.unix.internals:147 alt.config:2799
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww
From: dww@stl.stc.co.uk (David Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,alt.config
Subject: Re: c.u.wizards vs. c.u.internals
Message-ID: <3360@stl.stc.co.uk>
Date: 8 Sep 90 18:47:48 GMT
References: <26E4EC42.42AB@tct.uucp> <18533@rpp386.cactus.org> <BZS.90Sep6153550@world.std.com> <1747@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> <4YQ5MLG@xds13.ferranti.com>
Organization: STL Harlow, UK
Lines: 17

In article <4YQ5MLG@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>> Is it time for alt.unix.wizards?
>
>I'll create an alt.unix.wizards in a couple of days unless I get lots of
>nasty email. There are clearly a lot of people who want something like it.

Huh?   I know that some people morn the loss of the old name, but the group
still exists under its new name of comp.unix.internals.   Why on earth
should we need a new alt group to 'shadow' an existing comp group?   It makes
sense to introduce an Altnet group for a new subject that may later migrate 
to the Usenet, or for a subject that the main Usenet will not carry, but 
not for a subject that is already as well supported as comp.unix.

Regards,      David Wright       STL, London Road, Harlow, Essex  CM17 9NA, UK
dww@stl.stc.co.uk <or>  ...uunet!mcsun!ukc!stl!dww <or>  PSI%234237100122::DWW
Usenet works on the principle that 10,000 people know more about the answer to
any question than one does.  Unfortunately they know 10,000 different answers.